Whew! What a thread. If I may jump in....
If Ford ever claimed that MDC was the "real story", he did so in interviews. Nowhere in the film itself does it say this is a true account.
Just because Ford may have known Earp (and how well he knew him may well be just another Ford exaggeration) doesn't mean he was under some sort of obligation to tell "the truth", which I doubt he knew in its entirety anyway. Even Earp, by the 1920s, may no longer have known where the truth left off and his self-promoting fibs began. Ford was a storyteller, pure and simple. If he had made a purported documentary and lied, that would have been one thing. He was making a piece of entertainment, period. Yes, historically, it was largely inaccurate. So what? This is something new? Every supposed biopic the studios have made since they began has had major falsifications in it, of facts, characters, you name it -- and these were supposed to be "true" stories. MDC never made that claim.
And as to anything Ford may have said over the years...well, he was a known drunk, liar and egoist who frequently claimed more for his films than even they -- great as so many of them are -- may merit. I say, just ignore it. It serves no purpose rehashing it. Many people may well have believed his rendition of the OK Corral and its characters. They've been misled. So? It's a lot better to have people mistaken about the particulars of an irrelevant gunfight that happened over a century ago (or 65 years past, at the time of MDC's release), than it is, say, to have millions of uninformed, gullible people lied to -- deliberately lied to -- by a dishonest filmmaker like Oliver Stone into believing all his conspiracy crap, falsified history, and fake characters in JFK. At least Ford, in making Earp a hero, had some basis in truth. Stone's effort to do the same for a known charlatan like Jim Garrison is nothing short of a disgrace, an insult to one's intelligence, and a betrayal of the truth.
Perhaps John Ford's approach to MDC is best summed up by the most famous line ever uttered in one of his films -- "This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." (THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE.) Those last three words even form the title of Ford's most recent biography. MY DARLING CLEMENTINE is neither history, biography, nor factual in any meaningful sense. Nor does the film itself claim to be (irrespective of anything Ford, for publicity purposes, may have later said). It's just a superb piece of movie-making, recognized as such in its day, and esteemed even more highly in the years since. It's a beautiful, almost perfect picture, and that's all that should matter. The rest is for enjoyment on the "goofs" page.
reply
share
cabbageboy316
16 years ago
I agree with the initial post. MDC has absolutely nothing to do with history which is inexcusable when it comes to something like this. A movie like Law and Order (1932) with Walter Huston is also a pseudo Earp movie but the names are changed and thus I had no problem with the Holliday type character dying before the final fight.
This movie though? It's so incredibly bogus. Especially compared to the much more faithful to reality Tombstone. That movie also has some aspects that aren't entirely true, mostly involving Brocius and Ringo (in reality I don't think Ringo was anywhere near the vicious gunman he's depicted as in the movie) but those changes or jumps to conclusions actually HELP that film. For instance I don't think anyone precisely knows who killed either Brocius or Ringo in real life, though their deaths are correct in Tombstone. Brocius was killed at a creek shootout, Ringo was shot and found dead under the tree.
Since it isn't quite clear who killed those guys in reality it only makes sense to have Earp and Holliday kill them, since it was likely either them or someone in the Earp faction that did.
reply
share
wadetaylor
16 years ago
My Darling Clementine should be looked at in the same light as Peckinpah's Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid, it is mythologizing the west, which is a good thing in my mind. Much like episodes of Daniel Boone or Davy Crockett on TV, they are people that existed and did some of the things that were shown, but for entertainment value new stories had to be made up every week, but no one asked if those things existed or not.
What is important is that it is entertaining. If someone can't handle mistakes in a hollywood movie concerning facts, then it would probably be best if they avoid historical movies.
reply
share
hobnob53
16 years ago
Exactly so, wadetaylor. Besides, how can anyone possibly be 100% accurate when relating the events of decades or more past? TOMBSTONE is certainly "more accurate" than MY DARLING CLEMENTINE, but did the people portrayed look, say and do each of the things the movie shows? I really doubt that. And TOMBSTONE contends it's "the truth".
Again, MDC never claimed to have been a factual reenactment in any way, so how can it be criticized as if it had? Anyway, if Earp lied about the events, neither Ford nor anyone else should be under an obligation to present the historical truth.
Attacking a film for not presenting "the truth" is valid only if the film itself contends it's telling the truth, and doesn't. (For examples of the latter, see THE GREAT ESCAPE, THE THREE FACES OF EVE, JFK, FARGO, and about 5000 other films.)
reply
share
ThatsRightChes
16 years ago
I love this fictitious movie - my only tiny problem with it was the element of fantasy included, that being when Wyatt chased Doc and the stage and he went at Quarter horse speed for miles. (Sorry - not usually so picky just seemed a touch ludicrous)
...and we have a new game today, I think, don't we, Mac?
reply
share
16 years ago
[deleted]
hobnob53
16 years ago
It's true the film itself doesn't state 'this is what happened', but the filmmakers at the time were claiming that it was intricately researched and presented a true picture of what was really going on in Tombstone circa 1881. They didn't disclaim the use of artistic license in depicting the characters or events but did try to portray "Tombstone" as the most accurate version of the Earps, OK Corral, etc., yet made. Whatever that means.
reply
share
16 years ago
[deleted]
hobnob53
16 years ago
"Clementine" does NOT say it's the way it happened. I keep seeing some people insisting the film makes this claim -- it does not. NOWHERE in the film is there anything said or written (as a prologue or anything) stating that Ford's tale is historical truth. The assertion that the film claims to be "the truth" is itself a falsehood.
I agree that "Tombstone" and "Wyatt Earp" are "closer" to the truth than, say, "Gunfight at the OK Corral", and certainly more so than "MDC" or "Frontier Marshal". But they aren't "accurate" in any meaningful sense of the term. As you say, they are not documentaries. "Hour of the Gun" is in many ways much more accuarte than the two 90s films, but it isn't the full "truth" either.
I can't understand the point of this thread. Why does anyone think a tale shrouded in time and bad or self-serving memories can or even should be filmed "exactly as it occurred"? There have been hundreds of films based on real events that take liberties with the facts, changing or omitting events, rearranging timelines, inventing characters, the lot. I cannot think of a single film that purports to be a true story -- a history or biography -- which is in fact completely accurate. Contrary to the false assertions that MDC makes a claim to such accuracy, in fact it does not, and it should in any case be viewed and judged purely as entertainment, and art. The same holds for the supposedly more accurate "Wyatt Earp" and "Tombstone"...they are not historically accurate either, so why are we holding "Clementine" to some artificial standard it doesn't claim, and judging these other films as somehow morally superior? As films, as entertainment, certainly as art, neither can hold a candle to "My Darling Clementine"...the latter's inaccuracies notwithstanding.
reply
share
16 years ago
[deleted]
hobnob53
16 years ago
I assumed you'd mention that, because a lot of people on this thread have stated this about Ford. Whatever Ford may have said about the film, especially years later, frankly is unimportant -- particularly given his propensity for rearranging the truth and just plain lying about his past and his work. Most directors, not to mention actors, producers, etc., say things meant to impress or mislead or obscure the truth...or maybe by the time they say them they really believe what they're saying.
No matter -- it's IRRELEVANT what Ford may have said or claimed then or later on. The inescapable fact is -- the FILM does not say anything, anywhere, in any way, about its being "the way it really happened". This is the only legitimate criterion on which an accusation about what a film purports to be can be based.
Criticize Ford for his false claim, but not the movie.
Before I "challenge" you? What, is this a gunfight?
reply
share
16 years ago
[deleted]
hobnob53
16 years ago
Okay, then we have no argument. I know what Ford claimed, and somewhere in the 346 posts above I said something to the effect that Earp himself was trying to sell his story in Hollywood in the 20s, which is when Ford met him (Earp died in '29). I'm sure Earp embellished the facts long before that, he was an old man by then and who knows what he really believed or remembered (or lied about), and who in turn really knows what Ford believed, knew, or lied about.
Point is, it's fair and accurate to criticize Ford, point out his own misstatements or whatever, debunk any claims he may have made that MDC was historically accurate. Good!
But that was Ford, not his movie. I don't say it's irrelevant to advert to Ford's statements in criticizing and refuting them, not at all. But the film itself shouldn't be criticized on those grounds, because the film itself makes no such claims. The celluloid, and the art it contains, cannot be held liable for the irresponsible and unfounded assertions of its unstable director.
More importantly, we both agree that the movie is (if I many quote you) "a masterpeice and a wonderfully entertaining film." And you're also right that "as a Wyatt Earp film...it is not very good." But in view of things, I think that's exactly what he deserved...even if he came off better than he merited!
What I can't understand is why some people who attack Ford (or the movie) for these historical inaccuracies can't separate that legitimate criticism -- even when misdirected at the film -- from appreciating it as the cinematic masterpiece you so correctly pronounce it.
See you.
reply
share
16 years ago
[deleted]
hobnob53
16 years ago
In 1881, the difference between a Doc and a surgeon was probably how much rotgut he'd drunk before the operation!
Yes, I don't mind criticizing the film for its inaccuracies -- just not for its claiming to be the truth, since that it doesn't do. For that, we go after Ford himself. And by extension, Earp.
And I do agree it's not a good Wyatt Earp film...but then perhaps that's an exceedingly narrow niche category. Actually, I never thought of any of the films concerning Earp, the Gunfight, etc., as "a Wyatt Earp film". To me, it's just a story in which Earp is one character. If anything, I think of them just as "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral movies". What Earp needs is a good, reasonably accurate and honest biopic, in which the gunfight is just one incident in his life. Good or bad, that would be a true "Wyatt Earp film".
But as the line from Ford's THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE went -- and which provided the title for one of the best biographies about the director -- "This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." There's nothing at all wrong with a movie doing that, as long as it makes no pretenses to the truth...as, we're agreed, this movie itself doesn't.
Bottom line: MY DARLING CLEMENTINE is one of the ten greatest westerns ever produced.
May I ask, acesovereights -- do you live in the UK or Canada? Or not in the US anyway? Your "name" certainly indicates a great interest in western lore!
reply
share
wildbillharding
16 years ago
OK, guys. Read this! Here's the precise quote from Peter Bogdanovich's book "John Ford." He said it as late as 1966, by the way. "I knew Wyatt Earp. In the very early silent days, a couple of times a year, he would come up to visit pals, cowboys he knew in Tombstone; a lot of them were in my company. I think I was an assistant prop boy then and I used to give him a chair and cup of coffee, and he told me about the fight at the OK Corral. So in "My Darling Clementine" we did it exactly the way it had been. They didn't just walk up the street and start banging away at each other; it was a clear military manoeuvre." (Studio Vista Movie Paperbacks - copyright Movie Magazine Ltd, 1967)
reply
share
hobnob53
16 years ago
Interesting, but it's still Ford's word, with no corroboration. Even if Ford is recounting what Earp told him correctly -- and he was talking to Bogdonovich 40 years after he and Earp met -- there's no way of ascertaining whether he remembered what he was told accurately, or (more to the point) whether what Earp told him was the truth in the first place. Earp's own recollections were almost certainly tainted by time (by the 1920s it was over 40 years after the gunfight) and ego.
The logistics of the "battle" itself aside, what is unarguably inaccurate in MDC is that Doc Holliday did not die in the gunfight (he died in Colorado in 1886, five years afterward); nor were the circumstances of the Earps' being in Tombstone (and Wyatt and Morgan leaving it) historically accurate; even the tombstone for the murdered Jimmy had an incorrect year of death -- the slab reads 1882, when the gunfight (which in the film comes later) occurred in October 1881.
So again, great movie, but as to its historical accuracy, there's a huge amount left to be desired, and the veracity of the sources -- Ford or Earp -- is at best highly suspect.
reply
share
Wakanohana
10 years ago
EarlWeber: "Or maybe John Ford's ego was just big enough that he could rewrite history - and bury the facts in a pine box out on the prairie."
Hobnob53: "Perhaps John Ford's approach to MDC is best summed up by the most famous line ever uttered in one of his films -- "This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend." (THE MAN WHO SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE.)"
In fact, nearly every "Western" is more myth than fact. There weren't many gunslingers nor many gunfights in the streets. The gunfight at the OK Corral is noteworthy because someone bothered to write about it.
reply
share